Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A could be invoked on the ground of suppression or misdeclaration when the assessee had disclosed the product in its declaration and correspondence and the Department had accepted the claim after verification.
Analysis: The declaration and correspondence showed that the assessee had disclosed the product as a growth regulator, though it sought the benefit of exemption as a fertilizer. The Department had accepted the claim after scrutiny, and the Assistant Commissioner had issued a letter granting exemption from the operation of Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules. On these facts, the finding was that the material particulars had been furnished and there was no concealment or deliberate suppression to evade duty. The Department ought to have verified the nature of the product before accepting the claim, and the record did not support invocation of the extended period.
Conclusion: The invocation of the extended period was not justified, and the finding that there was no suppression or misdeclaration was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the assessee has disclosed the relevant facts in its declaration and correspondence and the Department accepts the claim after verification, extended limitation cannot be invoked merely because the assessee sought a benefit under a different classification or exemption theory.